ChrisWeigant.com

A Populist Inauguration Free-For-All

[ Posted Thursday, November 10th, 2016 – 17:43 UTC ]

Program Note: At the bottom of this excerpt is the original program note I ran earlier today, just for continuity. The following excerpt had to be typed out manually, which took me a while to complete (I thought I had done so a long time ago, when taking historical notes, but it turns out I was mistaken). I am posting it in full here for regular readers as a preview of tomorrow's column. I would be willing to bet that now that Donald Trump has won the presidency, a whole lot of people are going to start noticing parallels between him and Andrew Jackson, the first truly populist president ever elected. I'm too tired tonight to provide any context or any of my own personal commentary, which I will add to the following to create tomorrow's column. But, as I said, I thought regular readers would appreciate the core story in advance.

Two technical notes are necessary. There is a passage missing in the middle of this, where the evening's Inaugural Ball is described, because it is immaterial to the story about the inaugural reception at the White House (and the excerpt was already long enough to type out!). Secondly, the "Mrs. Smith" who is repeatedly referenced is Margaret Baynard Smith, the wife of a senator from Maryland. In one of those historical quirks, the best first-hand description of the events of the day comes from an account she wrote (from the perspective of a society lady shocked at what was transpiring before her eyes). The story begins after hordes of people witnessed Jackson's swearing-in at the Capitol, while he is travelling back to the White House on a white horse provided to him for the journey.

 

From Andrew Jackson and the Course of American Freedom, 1822-1832, Volume II, by Robert V. Remini
(Harper & Row, New York, 1981, pages 177-180.)

"As far as the eye could reach," reported Amos Kendall, the side-walks of the Avenue were covered with people on foot and the centre with innumerable carriages and persons on horseback moving in the same direction. For a full half hour, I stood waiting for the stream to run by; but like a never failing fountain the Capitol continued pouring forth its torrents." Slowly, gesturing his appreciation to the people who cheered and waved to him, Jackson headed for the White House, and oh, said the disapproving Mrs. Smith, "such a cortege as followed him! Country men, farmers, gentlemen, mounted and dismounted, boys, women and children, black and white. Carriages, wagons and carts all pursuing him to the President's house."

Never had there been such an inauguration of a President -- not even Thomas Jefferson's. Never before had the ordinary citizen expressed his enthusiasm for a new administration so spontaneously, with such obvious affection and good will. Few inaugurations since have matched it in ardor and excitement. The people had massed in front of the Capitol to witness the "triumph of the great principle of self government over the intrigues of the aristocracy" and now they trailed their adored leader back through the streets toward the executive mansion, reluctant to let him out of their sight. Then it suddenly occurred to a number of ladies and gentlemen who were watching the procession from the safety of their homes that this shouting, "raving Democracy" intended to enter the "President's palace," as they grandly termed the White House. The "palace" was about to be invaded by the rabble -- the people. What had the country come to! The masses seemed to think that with Jackson as their President they had a right to attend the inaugural reception, something normally restricted to polite society.

By the time the General arrived at the mansion all the rooms on the lower floor were filled to capacity by a mixture of every conceivable race, color, and social standing. People from the "highest and most polished," said Joseph Story, an associate justice of the Supreme Court, "down to the most vulgar and gross in the nation" poured into the White House. "I never saw such a mixture," he moaned. "The reign of KING MOB seemed triumphant," he added. "I was glad to escape from the scene as soon as possible."

A modest White House reception had been planned. Nothing elaborate, nothing like the previous presidential "levees," which had had a regal and elitist tone to them. But what took place verged on public disorder. It became a wild, near-riotous scene. Barrels of orange punch had been prepared, but as the waiters opened the doors to carry them out, the mob spotted them and rushed forward to seize them. The "most painful confusion prevailed" as waiters and guests collided. Pails of liquor splashed to the floor, glasses fell and were smashed or stepped on, and such mayhem ensued "that wine and ice-creams could not be brought out to the ladies." Several thousand dollars in smashed china and glassware were lost during the pandemonium. To add to the general melee, men with "boots heavy with mud" stood on the "damask satin-covered chairs" in order to get a better look at their President. It was a "regular Saturnalia," laughed Senator James Hamilton, Jr. "The mob broke in, in thousands -- Spirits black yellow and grey, poured in as one uninterrupted stream of mud and filth, among the throngs many fit subjects for the penitentiary." One "stout black wench" sat quietly by herself "eating in this free country a jelley with a gold spoon at the President's House."

When Mrs. Smith and her family arrived at the mansion, they were aghast at the spectacle in progress. "What a scene did we witness!" she gasped. "The Majesty of the People had disappeared, and a rabble, a mob, of boys, negros, women, children, scrambling, fighting, romping. What a pity what a pity."

Poor Jackson. They nearly suffocated him with their display of love and happiness. Everyone wanted to shake his hand, or touch him or congratulate him. Amos Kendall caught sight of him standing a few steps from the south entrance shaking hands with "people of all sorts and descriptions." The journalist tried to get to the President but the flow of people surged toward him and bucking it invited physical injury. "Like hundreds of others," Kendall said, "I leapt in at the window of an adjoining room." Still it was impossible to get near Jackson. Finally the pressure got so bad and the danger of actually injuring the President so real that a number of men formed a ring around him as "a kind of barrier of their own bodies." The President, reported Mrs. Smith, was "literally nearly pressed to death and almost suffocated and torn to pieces in their eagerness to shake hands with Old Hickory." Happily, he made his escape from his well-wishers and returned to his temporary quarters at Gadsby's. It was 4:00 P.M.

The flight of the President did not dampen the spirit of the mob, however. The mayhem, if anything, got worse. Indeed, it now looked as though the mansion itself was in danger and might collapse around them. To relieve the pressure inside the building, tubs of punch and pails of liquor were transferred to the lawn outside and all the windows were thrown open to provide additional exits for those anxious to keep up with the refreshments. The strategy worked. The "rabble" bolted after the liquor, using the fastest means of exit.

It was wild. For ladies and gentlemen of refinement it was an awful commentary on American life and customs. What would the rest of the world think? What would they say? And, they asked, what had happened to American political institutions to bring this about?

. . . [Inaugural Ball commentary omitted]. . .

Indeed, the ball climaxed a memorable day. The inauguration proved so lusty in its display of the American spirit at its most boisterous, exuberant, and vulgar that the essential ingredients of this inaugural became traditional. It was the first people's inaugural. The people -- not politicians or Washington society or the Central Committee -- made it uniquely their own. "It was a proud day for the people," reported the Argus of Western America on March 18, 1829. "General Jackson is their own President. Plain in his dress, venerable in his appearance, unaffected and familiar in his manners, he was greeted by them with an enthusiasm which bespoke him the Hero of a popular triumph."

Speaking from a different point of view, Mrs. Smith had to agree nonetheless, although she tempered her comments with a small warning. "It was the People's day, and the People's President and the People would rule. God grant that one day or other, the People do not pull down all rule and rulers."

The inauguration of General Andrew Jackson, despite the vulgarity and animal spirits unleashed by the occasion, was one of the great moments in American history. And the reason for this, as everyone agreed, was that it represented in a symbolic way a significant advance in representative government for the American people. Andrew Jackson was the people's own President -- the first such -- and that was something wonderful and exciting. Seeing the crowds and hearing them cheer a government that they themselves had called into existence augured well for the future of a democratic society.

 

[Original Program Note:]

OK, today's column is going to be late (and may actually not appear at all -- may get subsumed into Friday's column). A while back, I wrote about some historical parallels between Trump and Andrew Jackson, and in the comments there were a few requests for more information on some historical stories I had merely alluded to in the article. I went looking in my own research to tell one of these stories, and found out my notes were nowhere near as complete as I had remembered.

Still, it's a good story, so I'm in the process of getting the book I originally read it in from the university library, and hopefully I'll be able to transcribe it tonight. No promises, though, it may take until tomorrow.

Here is one quote from the research I have easily at hand, for the time being. Here's what historian Claude G. Bowers had to say about Jackson's time in office, writing about it in 1922:

With the appearance of Democracy in action came some evils that have persisted through the succeeding years -- the penalties of the rule of the people. Demagogy then reared its head and licked its tongue. Class consciousness and hatreds were awakened. And, on the part of the great corporations, intimidation, coercion, and the corrupt use of money to control elections were contributed. These evils are a heritage of the bitter party battles of the Jacksonian period -- battles as brilliant as they were bitter.

You gotta love that line about Demagogy... really, the whole thing sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it?

In any case, I thank you for your patience, and hope that the wait will be worth it.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

29 Comments on “A Populist Inauguration Free-For-All”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In any case, I thank you for your patience, and hope that the wait will be worth iit.

    I know it will!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Isn't there an e-version of the book that you could just, you know, cut and paste? :)

  3. [3] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    I actually didn't include the story in my book, which is why I had to frantically dig through my notes.

    Just finished transcription. I think I'm going to post it here without any context, and then use it to build tomorrow's column around (adding in both context and my own thoughts on the parallels with Trump).

    Should be up in 15 min. or so...

    -CW

  4. [4] 
    neilm wrote:

    Sad news about Leonard Cohen. My first girlfriend was a goth who was into Cohen - unusual at the time. She was a couple of years older than me and cried when Led Zep broke up. I got an unexpected titty feel that night (we were so innocent) so I've always felt ambivalent about that particular ending.

    She would recite Cohen lyrics as poetry and had the prettiest face when she cried and smiled at the end. She left me for an older guy - everybody but me saw that one coming, it turned out. It was a bummer and I remember thinking that Cohen had predicted it all for me. I've avoided him ever since, obviously to my detriment.

    I was just as much of a fool as a teenager as I am today.

    Miss you Jacqui.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Should be up in 15 min. or so...

    I'll stay up a bit longer, then, listening to some Leonard Cohen ...

  6. [6] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, it should be up now, but you may have to reload this page in your browser to see the new stuff at the top.

    -CW

  7. [7] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whoops! Gotta get the normal header back, too... gimme a minute...

    -CW

  8. [8] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    There we go. Should be working now...

    -CW

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Looks good ... here we go!

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the parallels are many. hopefully this presidency won't end for immigrants the way jackson's time did for the native americans.

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    In any case, I thank you for your patience, and hope that the wait will be worth it.

    It's ALWAYS worth the wait :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    the parallels are many. hopefully this presidency won't end for immigrants the way jackson's time did for the native americans.

    the parallels are many. hopefully this presidency won't end for ILLEGAL immigrants the way jackson's time did for the native americans.

    There.. Fixed it for you..

    Trump *NEVER* had a problem with immigrants, save those from terrorist dominated countries...

    Trump's emphasis has ALWAYS been about ILLEGAL immigrants...

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Kicking yerself that you didn't register TrumpPollWatch.com??? :D

    TrumpPollWatch.us is still available.... :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mopshell,

    I know you and Paula communicate thru other sources..

    Is she doing OK????

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/13/donald-trump-joined-by-ivanka-trump-to-outline-child-care-policy/

    "Hmmmm affordable child care, paid maternity leave AND cutting down on unemployment fraud. OMG what a horrible person he is!!!"
    -My Daughter

    :D

  16. [16] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Interesting how your daughter snuck the dog-whistle 'cutting down on unemployment fraud' into that statement. She's her father's daughter, all right.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting how your daughter snuck the dog-whistle 'cutting down on unemployment fraud' into that statement. She's her father's daughter, all right.

    Nice thing about "dog whistles"...

    They can mean whatever one wants them to mean... NO FACTS required.. :D

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Campaign officials said the maternity leave program wouldn't cost taxpayers anything more; instead, it would be financed through savings achieved by eliminating fraud in the unemployment insurance program.

    Who could possibly have a problem with that??

  19. [19] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Who could possibly have a problem with that?

    Let's be perfectly clear: 'eliminating fraud in the unemployment insurance program' actually means 'cutting benefits by tightening eligibility', because actual fraud investigations are already an ongoing function of government. This proposal would 'save money' by throwing thousands of people - working people, mind you, otherwise they wouldn't qualify for the program - into sudden economic crisis. Lurking in the background of that proposal, however, is a corollary: a reduction of business contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Program. This is the goal that the lobbyists who have flooded into the Trump transition team are most likely after. This isn't about women at all.

    Unemployment insurance isn't welfare. The money for that program is deducted each month from everyone's paychecks. In other words, what Trump (or rather, Trump's lobbyist advisor) is proposing is to take away EARNED BENEFITS by narrowing the pool of those eligible to receive them. I wonder just how long it will take the writer of this proposal to find a way to make it disproportionately fall on the shoulders of the already dispossessed?

  20. [20] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [18]

    ... it would be financed through savings achieved by eliminating fraud in the unemployment insurance program.

    There fixed it for you.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other words, what Trump (or rather, Trump's lobbyist advisor) is proposing is to take away EARNED BENEFITS by narrowing the pool of those eligible to receive them.

    No.. what is being proposed is ensuring that those who are receiving those earned benefits ACTUALLY deserve those benefits..

    This isn't about women at all.

    Whatever you have to tell yourself to keep believing that Trump is Lucifer incarnate....

  22. [22] 
    Mopshell wrote:

    [18]

    ...it would be financed through savings achieved by eliminating the unemployment insurance program.

    There fixed it properly this time.

  23. [23] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No.. what is being proposed is ensuring that those who are receiving those earned benefits ACTUALLY deserve those benefits..

    On a case by case basis? As I said, there are already folks out there doing that.

    Naw, congress doesn't do pointillism. They paint with broad brushes, and that means cutting the program, which would result in either cuts to everyone's benefits, or narrowing eligibility for the program.

  24. [24] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Mopshell [22]: yeah, that's right.

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a case by case basis? As I said, there are already folks out there doing that.

    ANd yet how many millions and billions are lost to fraud each and every year???

    So, obviously they ain't doing it right or they need HELP doing it right...

    Hence, Trump's proposal......

    What?? Are you AGAINST affordable child care and paid maternity leave??

    What are you!?? A Republican!!!???? :D

  26. [26] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    As I am fully ignorant of Jackson's policies, I have no idea if they qualify as populist, so I hope you start there tomorrow. You're not just comparing campaign rhetoric right?

    From the excerpt, I believe it is a safe bet to say that Trump's inaugural will NOT be comparable to Jackson's.
    We could blame the Secret Service for that... or we could admit that Trump isn't fond of rabble. He may surprise many in the way he governs (I won't be holding my breath), but rabble will never be welcome in his White House or penthouse.

    To clarify, rabble as in average joe's... the rabble who break things and steal will continue to dominate both political parties... and the inaugural parties.

    A

  27. [27] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    C'mon Don, everybody knows that we exist only in the imagination of young Tommy Westphall.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't believe in a supernatural being that lived in nothingness with no time, space or matter and just decided one day before there were days to create everything out of nothing, so by extension there is no Lucifer.

    Yea, tell that to Sam & Dean Winchester!! :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't believe in a supernatural being that lived in nothingness with no time, space or matter and just decided one day before there were days to create everything out of nothing, so by extension there is no Lucifer.

    I think someone needs to watch the SUPERNATURAL EPISODE, Don't Call Me Shurley.... :D

Comments for this article are closed.